Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • And women have successfully voted to destroy western property rights in every el

    And women have successfully voted to destroy western property rights in every election after the first generation of women voters. Today almost all elections are decided by women, and principally by unmarried women and single mothers (see Pew). Without women voters we would never have moved to the left, destroyed the constitution, destroyed the family (the compromise), and had rampant immigration.

    Until we developed paternalism, women used sex to manage extended families. Men developed property, and paternalism, and instead of a few men reproducing, many did. All advancement in human history is the product of property rights – and women have destroyed them. And destroyed the west.

    So the future looks very much like the conquest of the west, and the return to greco-islamic paternalism. Why? Because women used democracy to violate the compromise that made western civilization possible.

    For men, it is much more desirable to live in a paternal world. It is easy for us to dominate women. We don’t make civilization for ourselves, but for the admiration of our wives and daughters.

    The only choice women have ever had was the one western men gave them. And they destroyed it with their folly and greed.

    Women gossip. Women destroy each other through hen-pecking in groups. Women destroy advanced society. It’s not complicated. It’s in their nature.

    Through most of history, women (gossips) were considered the root of all evil. It appears that even in advanced society, history repeats itself.

    We made a mistake deifying women in the victorian era.

    We were right all along.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 03:20:00 UTC

  • I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does

    I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does not devolve into justification for parasitism.

    The moment that we are no longer cooperating, but you are engaging in parasitism, and particularly when the state is engaging in parasitism, then I no longer agree to cooperate.

    But what does that mean? “I no longer agree to cooperate?” It can only mean two things.

    The first, is that I boycott opportunities for cooperation. The second is that I return to predation.

    Boycott is the only choice available to the weak.

    Predation is the choice available to the strong.

    My name is legion. We are many. And we are strong.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 03:08:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the t

    (worth repeating)

    One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the tax of constraining their violence in exchange for the benefits of doing so. But if those benefits do not exist, then there is no reason to pay the tax.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 13:43:00 UTC

  • Sure, university education should be open to all, and ‘free’ in the sense, that

    Sure, university education should be open to all, and ‘free’ in the sense, that one pays for it entirely from payroll deductions for the rest of one’s working life.

    Were this the case, the curriculum at universities would change radically.

    At present, we pay for knowingly defective goods, that are unwarrantied, and the state prevents us recourse.

    So my solution to the Cathedral is quite simple: eliminate student loans entirely, and require all universities to pay out of payroll deductions. The treasury can provide the interim float – after all: that’s what Keyensians say we can do with money….

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-22 10:47:00 UTC

  • How Do You Make Programmers Work 60-80 Hours Per Week?

    The answer, as a political economist, is this:

    Why are you trying to obtain a discount on the cost of software development by obtaining two employees worth of work from one employee?  I mean, that’s the honest question?

    If instead, you ask, “why do some programmers like to work 80 hours a week, and others do not?”  It’s because if you’re working on a game program, or something that is passionately fascinating to you, then you’d rather do that than anything else.  But you cannot possibly make most programming that interesting. 

    I work easily 14 hours a day between my occupation and my avocation, and often much more, and usually six or seven days a week.  But I both have the physical and mental capacity to do so (mostly), and I would rather do my vocation and avocation than I would do anything else.

    The number of people with the (a) physical, (b) mental ability, plus treat programming as both (c) vocation and (d) avocation, and who (e) prefer doing very little else – is just limited.

    So, just as very few species can be domesticated, because they require compatibility in five different behavioral traits, very few programmers (or people in general for that matter) can work that hard that much because all five of the criteria a,b,c,d and e, must be met to get that from people.

    Money actually won’t do it, only make it easier to do.  Opportunity helps motivate a little.  Love of what they do helps most, and  the individual’s genetics are the greatest determinant. 

    But, if you think you can ‘motivate’ people into working those hours the only way that I know of is to do it for six weeks or less, and bonus EVERYONE Involved something life-altering if they achieve the goal, after which they get a vacation for two weeks.  Why?  Because social membership will drive people more than any other factor – at least for short periods of time. 

    If you put such an incentive together, anyone who doesn’t carry the water of the whole team – fire immediately, and keep the rest. Otherwise they poison the well.

    But it’s an illogical man that seeks to obtain two people’s worth of labor from one person.  I mean, that’s not only fruitless, and marginally impossible: it’s immoral.

    Which is why so many countries forbid it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-programmers-work-60-80-hours-per-week

  • JUSTIFIABILITY IS A MORAL CONSTRAINT, NOT AN EPISTEMIC ONE – BUT MORAL JUSTIFICA

    JUSTIFIABILITY IS A MORAL CONSTRAINT, NOT AN EPISTEMIC ONE – BUT MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT FALLACIOUS.

    Even scientific arguments must be morally justifiable. (Really!)

    Compare: Morally justifiable vs rationally justifiable vs truthfully justifiable.

    1) Statements can be justified morally. That is where we got the concept of justification from.

    2) Rational statements cannot be justified, only internal consistency can be demonstrated.

    3) Truthful statements cannot be justified, only warrantied. If we warranty our statements to truthfulness then we are justified in speaking them.

    But the degree of parsimonious correspondence (truth), and therefor the epistemological quality – the quality of the theory – can never be justified.

    It is this combination of morally justifiability and parsimonious correspondence that we conflate in the discussion of truth, and that is why volumes of parchment , paper, bytes, radio waves and speech have been wasted in a tragically simple error.

    Thus endeth the lesson. 😉

    Justifiability still matters. But it’s justifiability in the warranty of the argument, not justifiabitly in the truth of it.

    (Almost two years I’ve spent on this damned problem. In April it will be two years! Argh.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-11 03:25:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (

    YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (CONVINCE THEM OF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD PREFER, RATHER THAN STATE THAT WHICH WE PREFER, AND THEY MUST GRANT US OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.)

    (from elsewhere)

    Yeah… I agree that you can’t persuade people. but that’s mostly because of the investment cost: the fact that the intuitionistic searching we do (that which we cannot observe) determines the subjective probability (possibility) of answers. And I suspect some of our learning isn’t open to re-weighting (what we call metaphysical value judgements), because all consequential development is dependent upon those pre-rational, pre-cognitive, unobservable, weights.

    I am never going to convince a person highly invested in ‘meaning’, highly invested in ‘rationalism’, or highly invested in ‘postmodern construction of social reality’ any more than I am going to convince their precursors: metaphorical and historical analogists, or mystics and magians, or even those few cultures who never developed any post-experiential thought such as mythic history (and yes they do exist.)

    Furthermore, I’m not going to convince someone like Wilber (Nor do I feel the need to ) to adopt the level of scientific argument I’m working on, because his inquiry is into the personal and experiential, just as mine is in the political and INEXPERIENTIAL. I want to prevent people from doing harm (law). People like him want to help people find happiness(religion).

    I cannot convince the feminine (submissive) bias in favor of buddhism, to switch to the male (dominance) bias in favor of stoicism, even though both are only concerned with mindfulness, and happiness achieved through mindfulness. The difference between them being buddhist discipline in escapism, and stoic action in reality. Any more than I can convince a hedonist to prefer either, or scientific ascetic like myself to do either.

    We cannot convince others.

    And the only reason we even think of it, is so that we can form alliances in order to obtain power by means of gossip and ostracism, or authority, law and violence, or to encourage consumption for the purpose of profiting from it.

    We don’t need ideals and monopolies. We are not only unequal, but very different – different casts, that perform different functions in the inter-temporal division of reproductive labor.

    There is only one ‘law’ that must be observed for all of us to have the possibility of happiness, and that law is the prohibition on parasitism, without which violence is our only rational recourse.

    And propertarianism is the only logical means of providing decideablity between individuals in a heterogeneous polity of heterogeneous interests, working in our self interest, through nothing but signals and information, in a voluntary order of cooperation toward one end: the persistence of our genes, and the persistence of man.

    A monopolist of preferences, whether socialist conservative, or libertarian, is a tyrant. It doesn’t matter which point in the spectrum you advocate. Monopoly in political systems requires the elimination of choice.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 06:25:00 UTC

  • SURE, MANY PEOPLE ABANDON LIBERTINISM (ANARCHISM). BUT DOES ANYONE ABANDON LIBER

    SURE, MANY PEOPLE ABANDON LIBERTINISM (ANARCHISM). BUT DOES ANYONE ABANDON LIBERTY OR LIBERTARIANISM, REALLY?

    (from a series of comments on Matt Zwolinski’s page)

    It is very difficult NOT to abandon anarchy – other than as a research program. Anarchism is an exceptionally fruitful research program for analysis of institutions, but it is reliant upon intentionally excluding variables: the demonstrated behavior of man. But abandoning anarchism is not the same as abandoning liberty or libertarianism.

    As far as I know we all go through a similar cycle: exploring the limits and returning to some means of producing commons in the classical liberal model. The anarchic model has been a fruitful research program in investigating alternative means of producing commons, but the assumption of persistence without institution, myth and ritual seems to fail.

    When you say ‘someone is, or was, a libertarian’ do you mean (a) giving higher preference to liberty as a moral intuition, or (b) using libertarian institutions to achieve some other moral intuition, or (c) both.

    As far as I know a lot of people in (a) explore and abandon anarchism. A lot of people in (b) do not possess intuition (a). And an individual that possesses intuition (a), and studies institutions (b), seems extremely unlikely to abandon (a).

    So I can’t think of anyone who abandons or abandoned liberty. As far as I know it’s a cognitive bias. We merely change our institutional preferences. I can think of many people who seek an means of justifying non-libertarian moral biases, who then gives up on them.

    Anyone who works at the problem long enough, as one of formal institutions over demonstrated behavior of man, will eventually follow the same path. If one’s ambition is mere verbal rebellion, we can’t qualify that as political science – it’s just elaborate moral indignation, or a distraction from other strategic intentions. Either anarchism is existentially possible or it’s not. Liberty is achievable in the sense that moral constraints expressed as the total prohibition on violations of property, whether by individual or organization, regardless of the organization, can be made enforceable by an in-group third party. But no case can be made that I know of that can survive without a monopoly definition of property, a monopoly definition of property rights, the common law to adjudicate them, universal standing, an exclusive territory, a militia to defend the boundaries, the people, the assets and the law, some ritual that propagates intuitionistic persistence of the rule of law, and at least one individual as a decision maker for undecidable propositions – not the least of which is to call up such a militia to restore those rights.

    Liberty provides decidability to moral propositions by requiring consent to transfers. Progressivism favors consumption and conservatism favors accumulation – of human capital in particular. But neither requires consent.

    Of the three criteria for decisions only liberty provides operational decideability, and only operational decideability under voluntary exchange makes full use of the knowledge of the other two dimensions.

    Humans function as a moral division of labor, and we libertarians are the moderators – the market makers: we demand voluntary exchange between the three axis.

    (Although that might take a bit of pondering to grasp.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 12:51:00 UTC

  • Liberty (property) provides decidability to moral propositions by requiring cons

    Liberty (property) provides decidability to moral propositions by requiring consent to transfers. Progressivism favors consumption and conservatism favors accumulation – of human capital in particular.

    Of the three decisions only liberty provides operational decideability, and only operational decideability under voluntary exchange makes full use of the knowledge of the other two dimensions.

    Humans operate under a moral division of labor, and we libertarians are the moderators – the market makers.

    Libertine Fundamentalism is an equally dishonest attempt to escape our own requirement for voluntary transfer.

    Although that might take a bit of pondering to grasp.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 16:24:00 UTC

  • The Central Argument To The Origin Of Morality: Cost vs Scarcity

    [S]carcity is a universal, unknowable, marginal indifference. It is praxeologicaly non-existent. I cannot know and act on it. Cost is particular, knowable, and decidable because of marginal differences. It is praxeologicaly existential. I can know and act on it.
    Scarcity is a necessary constraint between states, that need not reduce local transaction costs, but which must avoid conflict despite differences in in-group (local) rules.

    Morality is important between individuals, because they must reduce transaction costs sufficiently to engage in production in a division of knowledge and labor. Morality prohibits free riding, and is determined by costs that are knowable by the actors.
    Polities must form laws (rules) of cooperation, that mix the necessary rules of morality (prohibition on free riding), with the rules necessary for the production of commons, with the utilitarian allocation of privileges (norms) that assist in either parasitism or the organization of production or both.

    Rothbard, as a cosmopolitan, was trying to justify separatism. Not describe necessary properties of cooperation, nor the necessary properties of rule of law, under which a group of people can cooperate without allocation of discretion to individuals with authority.

    ( That basic argument should put the bullet in Hoppe’s Scarcity argument forever. Just like I have put the bullet in his Argumentation forever. Just like I have put a bullet in ghetto ethics forever. Just like I have put a bullet in the NAP(IVP) forever. Just as I suspect I may have put a bullet in ‘meaning’ forever. )


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine